Miller v. Stein

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Miller v. Stein

242 A.D.2d 950, 662 N.Y.S.2d 901

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedSeptember 30, 1997

StatusPublished

This text of 242 A.D.2d 950 (Miller v. Stein) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Miller v. Stein, 242 A.D.2d 950, 662 N.Y.S.2d 901 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

Order unanimously affirmed [951]*951without costs. Memorandum: Supreme Court properly granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Plaintiffs, prospective buyers of defendant’s property, allege that, while they were inspecting defendant’s property, plaintiff Jeannette Müller was injured when she slipped on a man-made ridge that was hidden in tall grass. In support of the motion, defendant denied knowledge of the ridge, which was in an unmowed, unimproved section of the property. In response, plaintiffs failed to offer proof to support their contention that the ridge was man-made and that defendant had knowledge of its existence, thereby failing to raise an issue of fact (see generally, Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562). Plaintiffs argue in the alternative that the ridge was “clearly not an invisible obstacle” and that defendant therefore cannot claim lack of notice of the ridge. However, under those circumstances, defendant would have no duty to warn. There is no duty to warn of “ ‘a condition that can be readily observed by the reasonable use of senses’ ” (Cimino v Town of Hempstead, 110 AD2d 805, 806, affd 66 NY2d 709, quoting Olsen v State of New York, 30 AD2d 759, affd 25 NY2d 665; see also, Zaffiris v O’Loughlin, 184 AD2d 696). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Ontario County, Henry, Jr., J.—Summary Judgment.) Present—Denman, P. J., Green, Hayes, Balio and Fallon, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Order unanimously affirmed [951]*951without costs. Memorandum: Supreme Court properly granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Plaintiffs, prospective buyers of defendant’s property, allege that, while they were inspecting defendant’s property, plaintiff Jeannette Müller was injured when she slipped on a man-made ridge that was hidden in tall grass. In support of the motion, defendant denied knowledge of the ridge, which was in an unmowed, unimproved section of the property. In response, plaintiffs failed to offer proof to support their contention that the ridge was man-made and that defendant had knowledge of its existence, thereby failing to raise an issue of fact (see generally, Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562). Plaintiffs argue in the alternative that the ridge was “clearly not an invisible obstacle” and that defendant therefore cannot claim lack of notice of the ridge. However, under those circumstances, defendant would have no duty to warn. There is no duty to warn of “ ‘a condition that can be readily observed by the reasonable use of senses’ ” (Cimino v Town of Hempstead, 110 AD2d 805, 806, affd 66 NY2d 709, quoting Olsen v State of New York, 30 AD2d 759, affd 25 NY2d 665; see also, Zaffiris v O’Loughlin, 184 AD2d 696). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Ontario County, Henry, Jr., J.—Summary Judgment.) Present—Denman, P. J., Green, Hayes, Balio and Fallon, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

242 A.D.2d 950, 662 N.Y.S.2d 901, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/miller-v-stein-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack